- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ancient civilizations. Y or N?
Posted on 5/4/24 at 3:55 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
Posted on 5/4/24 at 3:55 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
But that's the point, that we evolve in stages, and we don't expect that farmers and nomads will casually wake up one day and decide to erect massive stone structures. Yet that's what we're TOLD to believe by Archaeology™.
That is not what we're told. Do more reading about sites like Gobekli Tepe. Thousands of years of development, with the time estimates having a margin of error around a thousand years.
The dreaded "mainstream" archaeologists, who have significantly pushed back the estimates of urban development in just the last decade.
I think it's all pretty cool and interesting; our ideas about the history of civilization and agriculture that we were taught in school as kids have changed drastically, just in the last ten years.
But...those discoveries have been made my "mainstream" archaeologists, Con-artists like Graham Hancock have made a nice little cottage industry of pointing to new discoveries by archaeologists, and then pointing the finger and acting like they're hiding their own discoveries or something.
The pyramids are a great example of people inventing mystery where knowledge exists. Hieroglyphics and inscriptions have in fact been found, and studied and written about extensively. Herodotus visited the pyramids in the 5th Century B.C. and wrote that he was taught by local priests and scholars who showed him inscriptions about the building of the pyramids as tombs to the great pharaohs.
But all it takes is a few persistent youtubers and con-artists to deny the existence of actual historical records to convince other people that those records don't exist.
ETA: I forgot to bash the Ancient Alien "theorists" too. I would call them idiots, but they're smart enough to make a career out of outright lies.
This post was edited on 5/4/24 at 3:57 pm
3
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:07 pm to PowerTool
What was that massive underground system they found in that same part of the world? Miles of tunnels that lead to dozens of rooms, advanced ventilation and irrigation, etc. I want to say parts of it were dated before even Gobekli Tepi.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:10 pm to GRTiger
Derinkuyu
Derinkuyu underground city
Derinkuyu underground city
quote:
ancient multi-level underground city near the modern town of Derinkuyu in Nevsehir Province, Turkey, extending to a depth of approximately 85 metres (280 ft). It is large enough to have sheltered as many as 20,000 people together with their livestock and food stores.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:11 pm to SpartanSoul
quote:
Derinkuyu
That's it. Thanks
Eta
Was I wrong about the oldest dates of its existence? Scanning wiki says it's much more modern than I stated.
This post was edited on 5/4/24 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:35 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
Let’s say we nuke the world and present civilization to the ground, which now isn’t out o the realm of possibility. Who has the best chance to survive, the strongest who are capable of finding ways to survive or the smartest who are more fragile. We’d likely lose most great minds.
Chances are the surviving humans will basically start from scratch and will take possibly centuries to even scratch the surface of where we are today.
It’s not far fetched to believe that more advanced civilizations existed and met an end many thousands of years ago and it has taken this long to come this far.
It’s just a thought, but maybe we aren’t nearly as advanced as we think we are…..
Chances are the surviving humans will basically start from scratch and will take possibly centuries to even scratch the surface of where we are today.
It’s not far fetched to believe that more advanced civilizations existed and met an end many thousands of years ago and it has taken this long to come this far.
It’s just a thought, but maybe we aren’t nearly as advanced as we think we are…..
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:42 pm to Corinthians420
How about The Great Flood?
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:44 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
it's becoming more and more accepted that humans (or some form) had achieved high levels of technological advancement in the distant past.
This belief that there wasn’t some ancient civilization that was fairly advanced far in the past is a very recent belief. Have you ever read Genesis?
quote:
So what happened to them? Where are they? Why hasn't more survived?
A great flood wiped them out
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:45 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
But that's the point, that we evolve in stages, and we don't expect that farmers and nomads will casually wake up one day and decide to erect massive stone structures. Yet that's what we're TOLD to believe by Archaeology™.
That is one huge straw man
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:47 pm to cssamerican
quote:
This belief that there wasn’t some ancient civilization that was fairly advanced far in the past is a very recent belief. Have you ever read Genesis?
How are we using "advanced" here?
Because Genesis doesn't describe anything I'd call "advanced" in terms of human existence.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:48 pm to RockoRou
I would say read the Bible but the ancient civilizations that probably created most of the stuff we think aliens are responsible for aren’t in the regular one except for a brief excerpt in Genesis. However these creatures are described in the Book of Enoch which is is the Ethiopian Bible. These creatures are called Nephilum.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 4:59 pm to Clark14
the strongest who are capable of finding ways to survive or the smartest who are more fragile...
______________________________
Why do you think that being smart is antithetical to being strong? There are lots of people who have both of these qualities. And when you say strong, are you referring to the Darwin definition of the fittest? Strong immune system, being physically able to adapt to your environment, disease free and able to extract food from your surrounding?
______________________________
Why do you think that being smart is antithetical to being strong? There are lots of people who have both of these qualities. And when you say strong, are you referring to the Darwin definition of the fittest? Strong immune system, being physically able to adapt to your environment, disease free and able to extract food from your surrounding?
Posted on 5/4/24 at 5:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How are we using "advanced" here?
Advance compared to nomad hunter gathers. I don’t think anyone really believes ancient civilizations are advanced as we are today.
quote:The story between Cain & Abel till the flood mentions the formation of metal working, music and other cultural achievements. The Noah story shows that man at least believed it was possible back then to build a massive Navy vessel that man would not be capable of building for another 5,000 years.
Because Genesis doesn't describe anything I'd call "advanced" in terms of human existence.
This post was edited on 5/4/24 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 5/4/24 at 5:04 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
I am more interested in outward vs inward.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 5:18 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
we evolve in stages, and we don't expect that farmers and nomads will casually wake up one day and decide to erect massive stone structures. Yet that's what we're TOLD to believe by Archaeology
Weird, archaeology never told me that. I always read we got to that point through thousands of years of development.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 5:19 pm to Clark14
quote:
Let’s say we nuke the world and present civilization to the ground, which now isn’t out o the realm of possibility. Who has the best chance to survive, the strongest who are capable of finding ways to survive or the smartest who are more fragile
I'd say the luckiest
Which to your point, wouldn't necessarily favor strong vs weak, at least initially. After that, strong vs weak, dumb vs smart, all mean different things in the "new world."
Posted on 5/4/24 at 6:20 pm to nealnan8
quote:
Why do you think that being smart is antithetical to being strong? There are lots of people who have both of these qualities. And when you say strong, are you referring to the Darwin definition of the fittest? Strong immune system, being physically able to adapt to your environment, disease free and able to extract food from your surrounding?
In a lawless, did eat dog world, history tells us that the scale is tipped toward the physically strong.Civilized societies have helped equal that out somewhat.
It’s like the far left vs the far right of today, the left think they are smarter but I have no doubt the right could kick their arse without breaking a sweat.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 6:39 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
6 Billion years, who knows what actually happened in an amount of time we can’t even grasp? Anyone that flat out says NO to any idea of Ancient Civilizations sound about as crazy as people that believe another world is on the other side of a ice wall in Antartica.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 6:41 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
The reason I am skeptical of very ancient civilizations is population size. There just weren't enough people around back then to make constructing some large buildings worth the trouble. A teepee made of mammoth bones was good enough.
The Great pyramid took something like 20,000 laborers. They built dormatories to house all the laborers and archaeologists have found this evidence.
In the Paleolithic, all of Europe barely had 20k people living there. So where exactly were you going to get these laborers? The population in Africa or Near East was likely larger (better climate) but they were still hunter-gatherers who lived in small tribes.
The 12,000 year old sites in Turkey (they have now found several) were built right around the time agriculture was invented. Indeed, it is believed the first farmers might have lived in Anatolia/Turkey. So it's plausible they were settled at that time, were in the early stages of farming, and already were seeing a population growth.
The Great pyramid took something like 20,000 laborers. They built dormatories to house all the laborers and archaeologists have found this evidence.
In the Paleolithic, all of Europe barely had 20k people living there. So where exactly were you going to get these laborers? The population in Africa or Near East was likely larger (better climate) but they were still hunter-gatherers who lived in small tribes.
The 12,000 year old sites in Turkey (they have now found several) were built right around the time agriculture was invented. Indeed, it is believed the first farmers might have lived in Anatolia/Turkey. So it's plausible they were settled at that time, were in the early stages of farming, and already were seeing a population growth.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 6:44 pm to gizmothepug
quote:
people that believe another world is on the other side of a ice wall in Antartica.
Not another world, man. It's the advanced civilization that came before, descended from the ones who survived.
Posted on 5/4/24 at 7:22 pm to AUstar
quote:
The reason I am skeptical of very ancient civilizations is population size. There just weren't enough people around back then to make constructing some large buildings worth the trouble. A teepee made of mammoth bones was good enough.
How do we "know" what the population was? There have been several mass extinction events that we know of (think dinosaurs). It is conceivable that something drastically affected an ancient civilization and set back the survivors both in numbers and technology.
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News